The V8 outputs a lot more heat than the 4-cyl, which is why owners and
converters are much exercised about how to get the heat out of the bay and
cut RV8-style holes in the inner-wings and louvres in the bonnet. The V8
maybe less stressed but since it turns in nearly 50% more fuel consumption
that must mean about 50% more heat. Maybe I should also have said that
whilst the V8 can comfortably maintain N whilst cruising it has more
problems when stuck in traffic even with twin fans, whereas the 4-cyl shows
no difficulties in either.
PaulH.
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>
To: MG List <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: (Paul) Shroud Question
> Well, consider that your V8 is actually less "stressed" than the 4, with
> considerably fewer HP per liter displacement (it's not rated 190HP, is
> it? I thought not). This leads me to suspect it generates less heat per
> liter as well, and one would expect the internal cooling capacity to be
> proportionate to the displacement (rather than the specific output).
>
> But that's neither here nor there. I guess my main point would be, why go
> to great lengths to run the engine at a lower than "normal" temperature
> just because the weather could conceivably get hot? That seems to be what
> is going on with changing to a 165 degree thermostat for the summer, and
> the benefit is not apparent to me.
>
> But I think I've rattled on long enough on this subject...
>
>
> Paul Hunt had this to say:
>
> >If the radiator cannot dissipate the heat of the engine then we are
indeed
> >in agreement. But I do find this surprising, since not even my factory
V8
> >suffers from that, while cruising, when the temps are in the 90s.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >PaulH.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
>
|